Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
1920 x 1200 on Retina MBP 15''?
- Thread starter MBX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But isn't "2880 by 1800" with an external screen? Or is it with the 15' on the MBP?
I'm curious what exactly it's able to display as is and if it can go as high as 1920x1200 without an external screen (i really hope so, then i wouldn't be too sad about the nixed 17'')
I'm curious what exactly it's able to display as is and if it can go as high as 1920x1200 without an external screen (i really hope so, then i wouldn't be too sad about the nixed 17'')
The Retina Macbook Pro has a 2880x1800 display.
By default things on screen are the same size as on the old 1440x900 display, just sharper. In the preferences you can choose different scaling options. The option for "More Space" gives you the equivalent real estate of a 1920x1200 screen.
It actually renders at the retina equivalent of 1920x1200, which is 3840x2400. It then downscales to 2880x1800.
By default things on screen are the same size as on the old 1440x900 display, just sharper. In the preferences you can choose different scaling options. The option for "More Space" gives you the equivalent real estate of a 1920x1200 screen.
It actually renders at the retina equivalent of 1920x1200, which is 3840x2400. It then downscales to 2880x1800.
If you're talking about the MacBook Pro with the Retina Display, it's 2880x1800 native resolution on the MBP screen, with the other resolutions as an option.
Just read the specs on the Apple site. They're pretty straightforward.
Apple - MacBook Pro with Retina display - Technical Specifications
Ok awesome. That makes me happy and not too sad anymore they nixed the 17'' even though with same resolution as 17'' (1920x1200) on a 15'' screen it might be a bit harder to see things and not as good for the eyes but whatever.
We haven't seen high quality photos yet, but there shouldn't be. Maybe some very slight blurryness because of the downscaling.
This scaling is not the same as simply setting a monitor to a non-native resolution.
That is impossible to know from those screenshots. I just cannot understand how the retina can display a non-native resolution without any sort of blurriness or pixelation. I dont see how that would be technically possible.
As I said above, OSX actually renders at double the 1920x1200 resolution in both directions, making a 3840x2400 image:
http://images.anandtech.com/galleries/2078/Screen Shot 2012-06-11 at 4.36.07 PM.png
That image is then downscaled to the native 2880x1800 resolution.
Instead of upscaling 1920x1200 to 2880x1800, you're downscaling 3840x2400 to 2880x1800. Still not perfectly native, but better that what most of us are used to with non-native resolutions.
Yes, I understand that, but the question still remains: downscaling from 3840x2400 to 2880x1800 is not a round number fraction (you get decimals in that partition), and since you cannot partition an individual pixel... there must be some blurriness or pixelation in the final result, which defeats the purpose of the whole "retina" concept.
Like I said, from a technical point of view, there MUST be a loss of quality along the way.
Correct. It can't be 100% perfect. To have that you would have to have either a 1920x1200 display or a 3840x2400 display.
It will most likely still look very good, since you have more than 1920x1200 pixels at the final output.
Does anyone know if the 1680x1050 mode looks worse than the current high res old 15"? because if so that is a serious step backwards for me, I really value the real estate over the standard 15" size
The Anandtech article specifically mentions that:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis